Well, looks like the Democrats want another "assault weapons" ban

Great Debates
81

I beg to differ; it’s this one:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
What is a “gun nut”? A gun nut is anyone who believes this issue is of any serious consequence. Keep the goddam things, if it makes you feel so good, muzzle tov, much good may it do you. Enough, already. There’s millions of the damn things out there, there is no way, none whatsoever, that any meaningful “ban” can or will ever happen. It can’t be done, not with every blue-helmeted Swede and every black helicopter in the world, it can’t be done.

But if you really believe, deep in the cordite soaked reptile brain stem, that gun control is the most important issue facing us today, or even in the top ten…you are a gun nut. And that includes people who think banning them is in the top ten as well. Forget it, Jake, its Chinatown.
[/QUOTE]

And yet we survived! Now I oppose the AWB and think that the Democrats’ logic in distinguishing “military-style assault weapons” from accepted civilian semi-automatic rifles is ridiculous.

But when the people that dear elucidator has identified as “gun nuts” aren’t blowing their stacks over legislation like this that would have insignificant consequences, they’re wailing that the Democrats have a brutal program of gun confiscation in the works.

They’re determined to overlook the very first passage in the Dem’s platform statement:

If you oppose a renewed AWB, then oppose it. I do. But if it does pass, I doubt you or anyone else will suffer very much inconvenience. And the idea that it would someday “lead to” your being prevented from owning a gun altogether is pretty far-fetched.

So take a breath and let your face return to its natural color. Remember that there are still plenty of reasons for people who care about freedom and the Constitution to vote against the Republicans this year, and that our society has real problems this time around.

Squeaky Wheels on GUNS

82

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Uh…I’m “paranoid” because I don’t want another AWB to be enacted? It was already enacted. Thankfully it expired. Now it’s up for renewal. I don’t want that to happen.

I don’t reject the idea that there are a lot of Dems who hunt and own guns. (The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but whatever.) I’m sure there are a lot of Democrats who own guns and still don’t realize that the “assault weapons” they want to ban are no more powerful than the rifles they hunt deer with - out of sheer ignorance. I’m also sure there are a lot of Democrats who are guarded round the clock by guys with guns, but don’t want others to have them because, you know, the life of the poor peasant is not as valuable as the precious life of the politician. And there are some anti-gun Democrats who are just plain elitists. (There’s a well known picture of Charles Schumer, a rabid anti-gun activist, firing a machine pistol with great glee.)

I’m not having it.
[/QUOTE]

For what it’s worth, I hate guns. If I could, I’d get rid of every stinking gun in a heartbeat if I could. I see no use in having guns outside of their aesthetic qualities.

However, in the real world, we have the Second Amendment, which I believe was written with defense in mind, but it simply doesn’t apply now. However, I see no reason that a person can’t have a gun. With that being said, I’d like for a line to be drawn, although I’m not sure where I’d draw that line. There are some guns that are pretty much anti-personnel (really, all guns are anti-personnel, but I’m willing to compromise) and they don’t belong in the hands of the populace.

Long story short, if you want a gun, you should be able to get a gun, but within reasonable limits.
Also, we should make ammunition impossible for people to get. That’ll solve the gun problem. Yes, that last part is a joke. Almost.

The real reason we want to limit guns is to prevent crime, and crime comes from poverty.
Also, I’m not wild on concealed weapons permits. I’m going to need someone to tell me why having a license to carry a gun around is a good idea.
Lastly, Obama doesn’t want to get rid of guns. He recognizes gun ownership under the Second Amendment.

83

[QUOTE=phouka]
Why do many guns just look “scary”? (Is it the macho thing? Like some bikers like Harley Davidsons because they’re so “cool” and other bikers sneer at them?)
[/quote]

It’s just an aesthetic. Guns have all kinds of designers, who like diferent things. Military-style casings can be pretty sturdy and cheap, compared to traditional wooden casings. Gun owners don’t have as many options as auto buyers when it comes to what casing they get, so there’s no prejudice against people who own them. It’s simply what you sometmes get on your gun.

Likewise, things like pistol grips, flash supressors, and so forth are mostly just for the comfort and convenience of the user. They don’t make the gun any me dangerous.

Finally, regulations against bayonet lugs are the most ridiculous BS ever put forth by man. When was the last time you heard of someone using a bayonet? Certain people like certain guns with them because the guns were originally made and sold that way. Many collectors items have bayonet lugs. heck, I’ve got several guns with abyonet lugs upstairs. One is a Chinese-made military rifle from the 50’s my father purchased because it was a moderately unusual piece, having been owned (I think) by the Nationalists. not many in America. The other is an ancient British Enfield rifle which is just a couple years short of having been used in the Civil War. Both guns work.

That’s part of it. Heck, many countries still use good hunting rifles as sniper weapons, and the most lethal snipers in history used iron sights on everyday rifles. Actual special-designed sniper rifles are extremely rare, not commonly sold to civilians, and to my knowledge have never, ever been used as a weapon in the comission of a crime.

84

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
For what it’s worth, I hate guns. If I could, I’d get rid of every stinking gun in a heartbeat if I could. I see no use in having guns outside of their aesthetic qualities.
[/QUOTE]

See what I mean? This kind of thinking is, as I said, extremely common. And people say I’m paranoid about anti-gun legislation. For God’s sake, you guys, if enough people think like this, then it’s going to have an effect. Clearly enough people already do think like this in Europe, where gun laws are completely draconian, and unsurprisingly violent crime in the UK is on the rise and people are unable to defend themselves. America is going to head in that direction too, if Obama and his friends get their way.

Obama says he’s for the Second Amendment. Of course he says that. He’s lying. A politician has to say that if he wants to get elected. For the love of God, actions speak louder than words. Let’s look at Obama’s actions. He supported the banning of all semi-autos. He supported the banning of handguns. He supported the AWB. Clearly whatever is coming out of Obama’s mouth, doesn’t mean jack shit if his deeds are so blatantly skewed on the anti-gun side.

Um…first you said reasonable limits, then you say you’re against concealed permits? The whole idea of a permit is to have a reasonable limit. In other words, if you’re a felon, you can’t legally own a gun. There, it’s a common sense restriction. But it’s still not good enough for you?

Anti gun people never, ever cease to leave me shaking my head in bewilderment.

85

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
See what I mean? This kind of thinking is, as I said, extremely common. And people say I’m paranoid about anti-gun legislation. For God’s sake, you guys, if enough people think like this, then it’s going to have an effect. Clearly enough people already do think like this in Europe, where gun laws are completely draconian, and unsurprisingly violent crime in the UK is on the rise and people are unable to defend themselves. America is going to head in that direction too, if Obama and his friends get their way.

Obama says he’s for the Second Amendment. Of course he says that. He’s lying. A politician has to say that if he wants to get elected. For the love of God, actions speak louder than words. Let’s look at Obama’s actions. He supported the banning of all semi-autos. He supported the banning of handguns. He supported the AWB. Clearly whatever is coming out of Obama’s mouth, doesn’t mean jack shit if his deeds are so blatantly skewed on the anti-gun side.

Um…first you said reasonable limits, then you say you’re against concealed permits? The whole idea of a permit is to have a reasonable limit. In other words, if you’re a felon, you can’t legally own a gun. There, it’s a common sense restriction. But it’s still not good enough for you?

Anti gun people never, ever cease to leave me shaking my head in bewilderment.
[/QUOTE]

That’s funny. I think I’m about as moderate and as level-headed as you can get on this issue. Personally, I’d love to see all guns disappear (like I said), but I realize that in the real world (and because f the Second Amendment, which I believe is misapplied) you can’t do that, so I’m cool with people having guns.

Yes. Reasonable limits. I don’t see the need for some kind of concealed weapon permit. Why does someone need to be walking about, carrying a weapon?

It’s like you’re shopping for shock and outrage and manufacturing it in your head when you’re not getting it. I really don’t get what you’re frothing about.
So far as Obama goes, prove that he’s lying. Unfotunately you can’t, and then you fall into your desire to manufacture rage. If you wish to point out that he’s been inconsisent, then let’s see inconsistencies. It seems like we’re on the fast track to “I can’t trust any politician”, which may hold some water.

86

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
See what I mean? This kind of thinking is, as I said, extremely common. And people say I’m paranoid about anti-gun legislation. For God’s sake, you guys, if enough people think like this, then it’s going to have an effect. Clearly enough people already do think like this in Europe, where gun laws are completely draconian, and unsurprisingly violent crime in the UK is on the rise and people are unable to defend themselves. America is going to head in that direction too, if Obama and his friends get their way.
[/QUOTE]
That’s odd - I don’t recall us having similar gun laws to the U.S. over here up until recently. I mean, when you point out that violent crime is on the rise here, you are presumably linking that to a lack of guns specifically, right? There’s a point where guns rights were harmed in some significant way just before this rise, correct? You have your cites ready and to hand, I would assume, from your certainty with which you post these details. Could you share them?

I’m sure that likewise you have in front of you some helpful stats that show that the UK’s violent crime rate is considerably higher in proportion to the U.S., seeing as how you have more ready access to guns?

I’m actually in the fun position of being, yes, happy with the level of gun control over here at the moment. And yet, were my opinion to matter, this doesn’t mean i’d want to enact similar laws over on your side of the pond. Why? Because, shockingly, they’re two different nations with two different populations, and an attempt at assuming that notions of gun control must be the same regardless and that those who oppose guns in the U.S. must of course want to match our draconianism is as laughable as the idea that guns would ever get anywhere near a total ban over there.

87

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]

Yes. Reasonable limits. I don’t see the need for some kind of concealed weapon permit. Why does someone need to be walking about, carrying a weapon?

…

So far as Obama goes, prove that he’s lying. Unfotunately you can’t, and then you fall into your desire to manufacture rage. If you wish to point out that he’s been inconsisent, then let’s see inconsistencies. It seems like we’re on the fast track to “I can’t trust any politician”, which may hold some water.
[/QUOTE]

Why does someone need to be walking about, carrying a weapon? That’s a really good question. Why don’t you ask the nearest police officer? “Excuse me, officer, why do you need to go around carrying a weapon?”

The reason why you might need to be walking about, carrying a weapon, is because maybe you want to be prepared in case of an emergency. Maybe you live in a dangerous neighborhood and have a high risk of getting assaulted. Maybe you’re a 78 year old woman who doesn’t have a chance in hell of physically defending herself without a little handgun in her purse. Maybe you’re an attractive young woman who would rather shoot a rapist than lay back and let him penetrate you with his STD-infected cock. Maybe you would rather be safe than sorry.

Police are given implicit trust by civilians to protect other people with their handguns. Why can’t this same trust be extended to people to protect themselves?

In any case, do you want to offer up some statistics on how many crimes are committed by concealed carry permit holders every year? Go on, I challenge you.

As for Obama, he’s paying lip service to his support of the Second Amendment. He supports our right to bear arms…except for handguns…and semi-automatic weapons…and “assault rifles” even though that term is meaningless bullshit…in other words he supports your right to own a narrowly limited group of weapons. That is not supporting the second amendment, not in your wildest dreams. That amendment says “shall not be infringed” and Obama’s positions are nothing but infringement.

88

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Also, I’m not wild on concealed weapons permits. I’m going to need someone to tell me why having a license to carry a gun around is a good idea.
[/QUOTE]

Let me explain. CCW holders are exactly the sort of people that anti-gun folks should be in favor of.

For years the tirade has been “But, people can have guns with only the barest of checks - criminals and mental patients can get them!” - and yet, they seem completely unaware that in most States, a CCW license involves several full background, criminal record, and (in my State) psychiatric records checks. You go down in person to the Sheriff and get questioned, fingerprinted, and photographed. You get entered into The System, voluntarily - in fact, you pay a decent amount of money for the right. There are also medical restrictions as well, although I admit enforcement of them is lax at this time. There is also a waiting period of at least 52 days, which can be as long as 90 days. Aren’t waiting periods (at least for gun purchases) something the anti-gun folks have tried to get for decades now?

For years the tirade has also moved on to “but people get these deadly weapons and have no training!” - and again, CCW opponents are unaware somehow that most licenses require mandatory classroom instruction, safety training, and range testing for safety and accuracy.

In addition, you cannot drink and CC, and if you have any domestic violence misdemeanors or felonies, you are disqualified from CC and your license is revoked (coincidentally, the same applies to the police here). If your mental status changes on-record, or your physical status, your CC license can be suspended or revoked.

Note that for all of the above, each State is different. Some States are admittedly not nearly as stringent as others. My State is fairly strict IMO.

And a review of the published facts of many States (I did this leg-work for Cecil a few months ago) shows that CCW holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens you will meet. Sure it’s a self-selecting group, but if the end is positive, why does anyone care? When you have a CCW holder near you, you have a person who has had local, State, Federal and sometimes International background checks on them, psychiatric checks, a waiting period, safety and range training, etc. Compare this to the average person who might stick a gun in their pocket to take to work with them. Big difference.

Finally, some of us need the ability to carry a weapon for protection. If you want to contest that point, get ready for a long post…no wait, I don’t have justify my need for self-protection as a small female and past victim of several violent crimes to anyone on an internet message board. Especially when over the past 8 years on the SDMB I’ve been picked on, flamed, and even out-and-out demeaned over it. So I guess there will be no meeting of the minds here.

He did support DC’s complete ban on handguns and the ban on keeping weapons in a way where they could be used for lawful self defense, right? Only changing his tune after Heller? And he does support the current Chicago ban, right?

89

[QUOTE=Cisco]
I don’t know, I’m not going to sit here and pretend to be an expert on global gun-control laws per country. I did a little reading though and you seem to be wrong about New Zealand having a gun ban. Wikipedia says they have ~1.1 million guns and ~4.2 million citizens. That doesn’t sound banned to me.

I know that guns were important enough to the founding fathers that they ensured (or apparently just tried to ensure :rolleyes: ) the right to own them in the Bill of Rights. I know that returning soldiers brought their guns home from the Civil War, at which point a lot of people agree that taking everyone’s guns became effectively impossible, or at least impractical without another war. I know that the right to bear arms is deeply entrenched in our national conscience and good, honest people will fight you to defend their constitutional right to do so. I know you’ve ignored the parts of my posts that were inconvenient to your arguments.
[/QUOTE]

We had an army composed of citizen soldiers. Guns were the weapons of the militia they were referring to. Also hunting was how most got their meat in those days. Guns were pretty important then.

90

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
If you’ve ever wanted a rifle with such dangerous, homicidal, terrorist features as a pistol grip, a detachable magazine, a bayonet lug, or a barrel shroud (“that shoulder thing that goes up,” as moron Carolyn McCarthy so eloquently said) - now is the time to get it, because we’re likely to have a Democrat president this year. And as if their party weren’t already blatantly anti-gun enough, here’s a little excerpt from their 2008 platform draft (full text here -PDF)

12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly
19 and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
20 right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Bolding mine.

Reasonable restrictions.

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?

You thick-headed, ignorant morons. If the Assault Weapons ban is a reasonable restriction, I am the Queen of England and I’ll eat my goddamn crown. This is a ban that is based totally on false premises, abject ignorance of firearms of the most egregious variety, and a campaign of misinformation and deception that would make Josef Stalin hang himself in the Red Square with a suicide note reading “I’m a worthless nobody.” That’s right. Because if a rifle has a bayonet lug, for a bayonet that will in 99 percent of cases NEVER be affixed to the damn rifle, it’s an assault weapon. Because if it has a pistol grip, that allows it to be held more comfortably, it’s an assault weapon. Because if it has a folding stock - oh my sweet lord, the stock folds over to the side! It’s…scary! - it’s an assault weapon. If the rifle has a barrel shroud - you know, that shoulder thing that goes up - which in reality does nothing more sinister than prevent you from burning your hand on the rifle’s barrel - it’s a goddamn assault weapon.

Oh, the unbelievable, unbelievable stupidity.

Well, you can see the whole bill here. If you know anything about guns, it’ll make you weep:

The M1 CARBINE?!?!

Are you kidding me?

That little underpowered thing that all of our grandpas and uncles carried in World War II and Korea, with a 15 round magazine, is a goddamn assault weapon? Could someone please explain what is “reasonable” about this?

Lest you think this is some fringe thing that has no chance of ever passing, here are all the other sponsors:

[as of 2008-07-05]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]

Well, that does it. This lands on Obama’s desk and I guarantee you he will sign it, because the guy obviously doesn’t know anything about guns. He never served in the military, and he hasn’t done any of the little photo-op things out hunting with a shotgun or whatever, which makes me think that he doesn’t even care about trying to appeal to gun owners. He pushed for the banning of all semi-automatic weapons in Illinois and is against concealed carry - obviously he doesn’t know an M-16 from a Marlin 60.

The guy is going to be Clinton all over again for gun rights. Mark my words. (Funny…how many crimes are committed every year with these "assault weapons?)

I’m voting for McCain.
[/QUOTE]

Of course you are. Who would expect any thing else from a guy who starts emotional gun threads. We are in a war of choice. The economy is in real trouble. Our civil rights are being shredded , And you go after the guns again. You are one of their peeps.

91

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
We had an army composed of citizen soldiers. Guns were the weapons of the militia they were referring to. Also hunting was how most got their meat in those days. Guns were pretty important then.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah and the First Amendment was only meant to refer to quill pens, parchment, and antique printing presses.

Blah, blah, blah. There’s no statute of limitations on the fucking Constitution. Either it means something, or it doesn’t.

92

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Why does someone need to be walking about, carrying a weapon? That’s a really good question. Why don’t you ask the nearest police officer? “Excuse me, officer, why do you need to go around carrying a weapon?”

The reason why you might need to be walking about, carrying a weapon, is because maybe you want to be prepared in case of an emergency. Maybe you live in a dangerous neighborhood and have a high risk of getting assaulted. Maybe you’re a 78 year old woman who doesn’t have a chance in hell of physically defending herself without a little handgun in her purse. Maybe you’re an attractive young woman who would rather shoot a rapist than lay back and let him penetrate you with his STD-infected cock. Maybe you would rather be safe than sorry.

Police are given implicit trust by civilians to protect other people with their handguns. Why can’t this same trust be extended to people to protect themselves?

In any case, do you want to offer up some statistics on how many crimes are committed by concealed carry permit holders every year? Go on, I challenge you.

As for Obama, he’s paying lip service to his support of the Second Amendment. He supports our right to bear arms…except for handguns…and semi-automatic weapons…and “assault rifles” even though that term is meaningless bullshit…in other words he supports your right to own a narrowly limited group of weapons. That is not supporting the second amendment, not in your wildest dreams. That amendment says “shall not be infringed” and Obama’s positions are nothing but infringement.
[/QUOTE]

Right, because comparing the police to Jane Q. Anybody and the use of each having a firearm out in public is a good comparison. Well, when your argument is “the police get to have guns in public to protect themselves, so I should too”, it’s either an enditment of society as a whole that people need to have guns to protect themselves or you don’t think highly of the police and their ability to protect the populace. Isn’t the entire role of the police to protect the public? We let them have guns in public and uniforms and sirens so they can do that. Apparently you don’t feel that police get an implicit trust in any scenario.

I also never made any assertion that concealed weapon owners commit crimes either.

I don’t know how many times you’ve saved your life with your concealed weapon in the past week, but in 27 years of existence and all the time I’ve spent..you know…out in public…I’ve never needed to have a gun.

Well, if that’s thy way you interpret Senator Obama’s stance on weapons, I still fail to see why there can’t be a line drawn that says you can have these guns, but you can’t have these. Of course, drawing the line is tricky, but I’d like to flesh that out. Again, for what it’s worth, the Second Amendment, I believe, is a dinosaur, but it does exist. That’s fine. I’m cool with that. I don’t get why someone would want a gun, but if you want a gun, you certainly can get one. Again, the argument lies at finding where to draw the distinction between “guns that Jane and John Public can have” and “guns they cannot have”.

Are you saying that there shouldn’t be any limitations on gun ownership at all?

93

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Our civil rights are being shredded , And you go after the guns again. You are one of their peeps.
[/QUOTE]

Our civil rights are being shredded. And yet you think the citizens should be disarmed too. Very logical position. Like so many leftists, you spew anti-government rhetoric about how the current government is so oppressive and evil, and yet…you want the government to have the monopoly on firearms? You want the only people with the guns to be the government’s employees?

Jesus Christ, if you’re going to be a left-winger, be the Abbie Hoffman kind. He was a huge gun fan and had a whole chapter in Steal This Book about different kinds of firearms and how to use them.

94

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Let me explain. CCW holders are exactly the sort of people that anti-gun folks should be in favor of.

For years the tirade has been “But, people can have guns with only the barest of checks - criminals and mental patients can get them!” - and yet, they seem completely unaware that in most States, a CCW license involves several full background, criminal record, and (in my State) psychiatric records checks. You go down in person to the Sheriff and get questioned, fingerprinted, and photographed. You get entered into The System, voluntarily - in fact, you pay a decent amount of money for the right. There are also medical restrictions as well, although I admit enforcement of them is lax at this time. There is also a waiting period of at least 52 days, which can be as long as 90 days. Aren’t waiting periods (at least for gun purchases) something the anti-gun folks have tried to get for decades now?

For years the tirade has also moved on to “but people get these deadly weapons and have no training!” - and again, CCW opponents are unaware somehow that most licenses require mandatory classroom instruction, safety training, and range testing for safety and accuracy.

In addition, you cannot drink and CC, and if you have any domestic violence misdemeanors or felonies, you are disqualified from CC and your license is revoked (coincidentally, the same applies to the police here). If your mental status changes on-record, or your physical status, your CC license can be suspended or revoked.

Note that for all of the above, each State is different. Some States are admittedly not nearly as stringent as others. My State is fairly strict IMO.

And a review of the published facts of many States (I did this leg-work for Cecil a few months ago) shows that CCW holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens you will meet. Sure it’s a self-selecting group, but if the end is positive, why does anyone care? When you have a CCW holder near you, you have a person who has had local, State, Federal and sometimes International background checks on them, psychiatric checks, a waiting period, safety and range training, etc. Compare this to the average person who might stick a gun in their pocket to take to work with them. Big difference.

Finally, some of us need the ability to carry a weapon for protection. If you want to contest that point, get ready for a long post…no wait, I don’t have justify my need for self-protection as a small female and past victim of several violent crimes to anyone on an internet message board. Especially when over the past 8 years on the SDMB I’ve been picked on, flamed, and even out-and-out demeaned over it. So I guess there will be no meeting of the minds here.
He did support DC’s complete ban on handguns and the ban on keeping weapons in a way where they could be used for lawful self defense, right? Only changing his tune after Heller? And he does support the current Chicago ban, right?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m cool with that. I’d rather there be no guns at all, but they’re here.

Really, CCW permits don’t sound like they prevent crime, but I’ll be flexible in the name of self-defense.

And if it’s “preventing crime” that we’re after, then we’re chasing the wrong cart, because we should be going after poverty.

…And ammunition.

95

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Yeah and the First Amendment was only meant to refer to quill pens, parchment, and antique printing presses.

Blah, blah, blah. There’s no statute of limitations on the fucking Constitution. Either it means something, or it doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it’s certainly not as though there’s a series of changes been made to it to update it for more recent times.

I think the “it was only meant to refer to then” argument in this particular case is a pretty weak one too, but your counter-argument is just as poor. The Constitution, fucking or otherwise, is regularly both subject to changing ideas of what it means and actual changes.

96

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Well, I’m cool with that. I’d rather there be no guns at all, but they’re here.

Really, CCW permits don’t sound like they prevent crime, but I’ll be flexible in the name of self-defense.

And if it’s “preventing crime” that we’re after, then we’re chasing the wrong cart, because we should be going after poverty.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, we should be working to eliminate poverty.

CCW may or may not prevent crime. The studies appear to be very mixed on it, with some drawing correlations between increases in crime with increases in CCW licenses. It’s very difficult to determine which is the tail and which is the dog. One thing that is very easy to find is that CCW holders, while they hold their licenses, appear to be much more law-abiding than the general public. The stats range a bit, but revocation rates for CCW are generally very low, on the order of 1-2% long-term (and in some States, like Ohio, IIRC a “revocation” can be listed for simply moving out of the State, being deceased, etc., so it’ hard to compare across States). In any event, the fact that CCW holders are generally a selected law-abiding group strongly implies (but does not prove) that crime increases are independent of CCW holders existing.

I would bet, given my reading of the Heller majority opinion, that ammunition restrictions would be as equally as protected under that decision as gun restrictions. But then, I’m no lawyer.

97

FoieGrasIsEvil writes:

> What about the fact that in this instance, they are stupidly wrong?

“Stupidly wrong” is a useless term. If someone is wrong about a subject, they are wrong no matter how smart they are. Insulting their intelligence is the last way to persuade them that they are wrong.

Grumman writes:

> Yes, I understand the difference. Don’t you understand the difference between
> defending your position and handwaving? I asked you a question, either you
> can think of a reason why an intelligent person would want to pass a law which
> bans a semi-automatic rifle with a conspicuous pistol grip and bayonet mount
> but doesn’t ban a semi-automatic rifle with a straight stock and bayonet mount,
> or you should admit that your position is unfounded.

I have no position about gun control that I have offered in this thread. I have no intention of offering any such opinion. I’m talking about the difference between arguing your position and calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot. You can’t deduce someone’s intelligence by taking one statement on a political position and concluding that because it differs from your position, they must therefore be stupid. More importantly, if you call anyone who disagrees with you stupid, you are assured of never getting them to listen to any of your arguments. In the SDMB, we’re not just resolving the subjects we’re arguing about. We’re also learning how to argue. One part of that is to learn not to gratuitously insult the people we’re arguing against.

98

Says who? I don’t see an official rulebook for style in Great Debates. If I feel like calling someone an idiot, I will. Their position is completely illogical: “this rifle has a little metal nub on the muzzle, so it’s an assault weapon, and this one doesn’t, so it’s not.” A complete lack of logic. Street name: stupid.

99

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
SClearly enough people already do think like this in Europe, where gun laws are completely draconian, and unsurprisingly violent crime in the UK is on the rise and people are unable to defend themselves.
[/quote]

Argent Towers, it appears that you’ve given up your hopeless attempts to defend the statements that you made about gun rates in Indiana. Good for you. (Although an admission that were lying would have been even better.) Let’s see how long it takes before you give up on your equally false statements about the United Kingdom.

The UK banned private ownership of firearms in 1997. In that year, rates of all types of crime dropped drastically. They have been dropping ever since. Here is a report from the Home Office which proves the point beyond any doubt.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to defend your claim? Are you going to admit that your claim was the exact opposite of the truth? Or are you going to do what you do best, and ignore this post?

100

[QUOTE=Cisco]
I don’t know, I’m not going to sit here and pretend to be an expert on global gun-control laws per country. I did a little reading though and you seem to be wrong about New Zealand having a gun ban. Wikipedia says they have ~1.1 million guns and ~4.2 million citizens. That doesn’t sound banned to me.
[/quote]

If I was wrong about the laws in New Zealand, I apologize for that. Nevertheless, just take “New Zealand” out of my post and replace it with Australia, or Germany, or Japan, or any of dozens of other countries, and my point still stands.

Well, as I just established, it was done in the UK with excellent results. It was done in Australia as well. Plainly it is very much doable. What’s lacking in America is any desire among our leaders to do it.